alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPursuant to Section 906(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18
United States Code

The
undersigned, being the Principal Executive Officer of Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P. (the "Partnership"), hereby certifies that the Partnership's Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained
in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form
within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Date:
August 6, 2004

|/s/DAN C. TUTCHERDan C. Tutcher
President and Principal Executive Officer | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 

---



QuickLinks
# C_2018436EN.01002401.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia (Italy) lodged on 6 September 2018 — Société Générale S.A. v Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

(Case C-565/18)

(2018/C 436/33)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Commissione Tributaria Regionale per la Lombardia

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Société Générale S.A.

Respondent: Agenzia delle Entrate — Direzione Regionale Lombardia Ufficio Contenzioso

Question referred

Should Articles 18, 56 and 63 TFEU preclude national legislation from charging a tax on financial transactions — irrespective of the State of residence of the financial market participants and the intermediary — which is payable by the counterparties to the transaction and consists of a fixed amount which rises incrementally in ranges of trading values and which varies according to the type of instrument traded and the value of the contract, and which is due by virtue of the fact that the taxable transactions concern the trading of a derivative based on a security issued by a company resident in the State imposing that tax?

---
EXHIBIT 23

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our reports dated March 27, 2000 (except for Note A as to which
the date is April 5, 2000) accompanying the consolidated financial statements
and schedules included in the Annual Report of Milestone Scientific, Inc. on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999. We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference of said reports in the Registration Statements of
Milestone Scientific, Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33376497), effective April 14,
1999.

GRANT THORNTON LLP
New York, New York
April 11, 2000
# C_2022119EN.01000201.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 January 2022 — Deutsche Lufthansa AG v European Commission, Land Rheinland-Pfalz

(Case C-594/19 P) (1)

(Appeal - State aid - Aid for airports and airlines - Decision classifying the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport - Inadmissibility of an action for annulment - Fourth paragraph of Article 263 TFEU - Natural or legal person not directly and individually concerned by the decision at issue - Effective judicial protection)

(2022/C 119/02)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and S. Noë, acting as Agents), Land Rheinland-Pfalz (represented by: Professor C. Koenig)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Land Rheinland-Pfalz. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Lufthansa AG to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission and by Land Rheinland-Pfalz.

---

(1)  OJ C 319, 23.9.2019.

---
21046

#### Rapozo v. State

Affirmed
# C_2020137EN.01004401.xml

| 27.4.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 137/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137/44

---

Order of the President of the Court of 22 November 2019 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Industria Italiana Autobus SpA v Comune di Palermo, interested party: Irisbus Italia SpA

(Case C-111/19) (1)

(2020/C 137/65)

Language of the case: Italian

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 182, 27.5.2019.

---
# C_2019065EN.01004301.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/43

---

Action brought on 14 December 2018 — Runnebaum Invest v EUIPO — Berg Toys Beheer (Bergsteiger)

(Case T-736/18)

(2019/C 65/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Runnebaum Invest GmbH (Diepholz, Germany) (represented by: W. Prinz, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Berg Toys Beheer BV (Ede, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union word mark Bergsteiger — Application for registration No 15 145 791

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 October 2018 in Case R 572/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**Exhibit 10.11**

 

**FIRSTAMENDMENT**

**OFTHE**

**SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. PROFITSHARINGAND 401(K) PLAN**

(As Amended andRestated Effective January 1, 2001) 

 

**WHEREAS,** Sky Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”); and 

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company hasdelegated authority to amend the Plan to the Sky Financial Group, Inc. Benefit Plans Committee (the “Committee”), and the Committee has determined that amendment of the Plan is necessary and desirable. 

 

**NOW, THEREFORE,** pursuantto the power reserved to the Company by Section 10.01 of the Plan, and by virtue of the authority delegated to the Committee, the Plan, as previosly amended, is hereby amended, in the following particulars: 

 

1. By deleting the word “and” before clause (ii) inthe last sentence of Section 4.02 of the Plan, and adding the following immediately after clause (ii) thereof, effective as of April 1, 2002: 

 

“and (iii) not include any commissions any Participant receives from Celaris Group, Inc. or any successor.” 

 

2. By adding the following paragraph (e) to Section 6.04 ofthe Plan, immediately after paragraph (d) thereof, effective as of March 15, 2001: 

 

“(e) If a Participant elects to receive his or her benefits in the form of a lump sum payment and his or her vestedaccount balance in the Company Stock Fund is $5,000 or more, the Participant may elect to receive such balance in Company Stock.” ****

 

*        *        * 

 

 

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF,**on behalf of the Committee, the undersigned Committee member has executed this amendment this 8th day of May 2002. 

 

**SKY FINANCIAL GROUP, INC.**

**BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE**

By:
 
Its:
 
 

-2-
# C_2018436EN.01005601.xml

| 3.12.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 436/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 436/56

---

Action brought on 25 September 2018 — Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank v ECB

(Case T-577/18)

(2018/C 436/79)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Crédit agricole Corporate and Investment Bank (Montrouge, France) (represented by: A. Champsaur and A. Delors, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRCAG-76 adopted by the ECB on 16 July 2018; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, on the basis of Articles 256 and 263 TFEU, Decision ECB-SSM-2018-FRCAG-76 adopted by the ECB on 16 July 2018;

| — | order the ECB to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the ECB to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law which are, in essence, identical to those relied on in Case T-576/18, Crédit agricole v ECB.

---
# C_2007170EN.01003601.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/36

---

Action brought on 4 June 2007 — Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise v Commission

(Case T-192/07)

(2007/C 170/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Comité de défense de la viticulture charentaise (Committee for the protection of wine-growing in the Charente) (Sainte-Sévère, France) (represented by: C.-E. Gudin, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul Commission decision No SG-Greffe (2007) D-20276 of 3 April 2007 addressed to the applicant's representative and thus declare void the measure contested in this action; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission decision No SG-Greffe (2007) D-20276 of 3 April 2007 addressed to the applicant's representative and thus declare void the measure contested in this action;

| — | declare null and void in its entirety the Commission's decision by which it dismisses the applicant's complaint. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare null and void in its entirety the Commission's decision by which it dismisses the applicant's complaint.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision of 3 April 2007 the Commission decided not to allow the applicant's complaint concerning the alleged infringement of Article 81 EC by the Institut National des Appellations d'Origine (INAO) (National Institute of Designations of Origin) in France and the alleged infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC by the major firms trading in cognac spirit (Case COMP/38863/B2-MODEF). By this action, the applicant is seeking the annulment of that decision.

In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas.

The first plea relates to the alleged lack of competence of the Commission member who was the signatory to the contested measure, when he signed it ‘on behalf of the Commission’.

Second, the applicant submits that the decision did not contain a sufficient statement of reasons in so far as the Commission did not respond in the letter rejecting the complaint to all the information submitted by the applicant.

By its third plea, the applicant claims that the Commission did not give sufficiently serious consideration to the complaint.

---
VETERINARIANS

7 

WAYS 

to Protect Pigs FROM

African Swine Fever 

Veterinarians are crucial in defending against this highly contagious 

and deadly virus. Work with clients to protect their pigs and livelihoods. 

1 Limit On-Farm Trafic

Urge your clients to limit trafic as much as possible and keep detailed 

records of all people, vehicles, and equipment at their sites. 

2 Teach Prevention Practices Regularly

Everyone needs to understand how to prevent and stop this virus. 

3 

 hower-In/ hower-Out

People can bring the virus onto your farm as it can live on clothing, shoes, 

and equipment. Remove clothing and accessories on a designated dirty 

side and dress in laundered items on the clearly marked clean side before 

entering or exiting restricted animal areas. 

4 Wear Clean Coveralls and Boots at Each ite

Because the virus can stay on clothing, this step limits disease spread for 

anyone moving between sites. 

5 Keep Pigs From Trash and No Eating Near Animals

Swine should not eat from trash as it can be contaminated. The virus can survive 

for months in pork and pork products and be a source of spread. Tell clients to 

keep all outside food products in a specific area away from animals. 

6 Wash All On-Farm Equipment and Vehicles

The virus can stay on vehicles and equipment. Alert clients to follow specific 

cleaning and disinfection protocols for all vehicles entering or leaving the site. 

7 Keep Pigs Away From Wildlife

Feral swine can carry the virus. Urge farmers to keep their herd away from 

contact with feral swine. Tell farmers to store feed where wildlife 

cannot access and contaminate it. 

Get more biosecurity measures and 

get the latest updates at: 

www.aphis.usda.gov/ProtectOurPigs

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as Amended

Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted), Bing Yeh, the President and Chief
Executive Officer of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



In
Witness Whereof, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of the 17th day of March, 2008.

|/s/BING YEHBing Yeh President and Chief Executive Officer |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, has been provided to Silicon Storage
Technology, Inc. and will be retained by Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
20161221 8K Exhibit 102



		

			 

		


		

			 

		




		
			AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO 
		

		
			SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN AGREEMENT
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN AGREEMENT (“Amendment”) is made as of the 21st day of December, 2016, by and between JAMES R. BARTHOLOMEW (“Executive”) and EMBASSY BANK FOR THE LEHIGH VALLEY, a Pennsylvania banking institution having its principal office in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (the “Bank”).
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			WITNESSETH
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Bank and the Executive entered into a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan Agreement dated December 23, 2015 (as the same may be amended from time to time, the “SERP”); and
		

		
			WHEREAS, the Bank and the Executive desire to amend the SERP to increase the amount of the benefit thereunder.  
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows:
		

		
			1.Paragraph 1(b) of the SERP is hereby amended to provide that the Normal Retirement Supplemental Pension (as defined in the SERP) shall be $15,420. 
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			2.In all other respects, the SERP, as amended above, is hereby ratified and confirmed by the Bank and the Executive.  All other provisions of the SERP shall remain in full force and effect as amended hereby. 
		

		
			﻿
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, each intending to be legally bound, have executed this Amendment as of the date, month and year first above written.
		

		
			﻿
		

			
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						ATTEST:

					
					
						 

					
					
						EMBASSY BANK FOR THE LEHIGH VALLEY

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						/s/ Lynne M. Neel

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Judith A. Hunsicker

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						WITNESS:

					
					
						 

					
					
						EXECUTIVE

				
	
					
						﻿

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						/s/ Diane M. Cunningham

					
					
						 

					
					
						/s/ James R. Bartholomew

				



		
			﻿
		

		
			﻿
#### Laing, Appellant, *v.*Remington Arms Co.

*Negligence*— Fall *of stringer*— Evidence.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries judgment for defendant n. o. v. is properly entered, -where the evidence shows that plaintiff, while working as an employee of a contractor on the premises of defendant, was hit on the head by a falling stringer, without any evidence whatever as to what caused its fall.

Argued Feb. 10,1919.

Appeal, No. 245, Jan. T., 1919, by plaintiff, from judgment of C. P. Delaware Co., March T., 1917/No. 195, for defendant n. o. v. in case of Thomas W. Laing v. Remington Arms Company.

Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Frazer, Simpson, and Kbphart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Broomall, J.

At the trial it appeared that at the time of the accident, plaintiff was employed as a workman by Wm. M. Anderson, an independent contractor, doing work for the defendant. Plaintiff was hit on the head by a falling stringer.

*131Verdict was rendered for plaintiff for $7,557. Subsequently the court entered judgment for defendant n. o. v.

*Error assigned*was in entering judgment for defendant n. o. v.

*J. DeEmen Le&ward,*with him *J. Morris Yeakle,*for appellant.

*Wm. I. Schafer,*with Mm *Arthur L. ‘Reeser,*for appellee.

March 10, 1919:

Pee Cubiam,

This judgment is affirmed on the following from the opinion of the learned court below entering it for the defendant non obstante veredicto: “In the case in hand there is no proof of the cause of the fall of the stringer. It was not shown to have been insecurely placed. To enable it to fall it must have been removed from its moorings. This may have been done by some of the workmen at work about it. This may have been by some of Anderson’s men who had the same opportunity as the defendant’s workmen. The suggestion that it may have been dislodged by vibration is in the absence of evidence of the extent and character of the vibration and that the vibration would produce such results mere speculation. In short we have a case where we have merely the proof of the fall of the object, with no proof of what caused it to fall.”

Judgment affirmed.
An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer

CENTER FOR VETERINARY BIOLOGICS NOTICE NO. 19-12

TO: Veterinary Services Leadership Team

 Directors, Center for Veterinary Biologics

 Biologics Licensees, Permittees, Applicants, and State Veterinarians

FROM: Byron E. Rippke

 Director

SUBJECT: Issuance of a Conditional License for Avian Reovirus Vaccine, 

 Killed Virus

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has issued a 

conditional United States Veterinary Biological Product License to Biomune 

Company, Establishment No. 368, Lenexa, Kansas, for the manufacture and 

distribution of Avian Reovirus Vaccine, Killed Virus.

A veterinary biological product regulated under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act must 

prove to be pure, safe, potent, and efficacious before issuing a veterinary 

biological product license. The regulations in title 9, Code of Federal 

Regulations, part 102 regarding the licensing of biological products provide that 

APHIS may issue a conditional veterinary biological product license to meet an 

emergency situation, limited market, local situation, or special circumstance. The 

special circumstance addressed here is the need for a product to provide a 

vaccination against tenosynovitis caused by emerging variants of Reovirus in 

chickens.

Conditionally licensed products are required to be pure and safe, and have a 

reasonable expectation of efficacy. APHIS issued the conditional license on the 

basis that Biomune Company has demonstrated that the product has a reasonable 

expectation of efficacy. Field safety trials established the safety of the product. 

Biomune Company has provided a written commitment to APHIS to complete 

studies to demonstrate the efficacy of this product and to conduct any other work 

required for full licensure. APHIS will evaluate their progress later this year. The 

conditional license will expire one year from the date of the license.

Animal and Plant

Health Inspection

Service

Veterinary Services

Center for Veterinary

Biologics

1920 Dayton Avenue

PO Box 844

Ames, IA 50010

(515) 337-6100